17-55 f2.8 and Dust

[BrentBoshart]

I just got a 17-55 f2.8 IS and 30D. I've only taken maybe 3 dozen pictures and to my surprise the lens already has a lot of dust inside! There is more dust inside than on the outer element. I have not even used it outside yet. So, what's up with that? Don't think there is anymore I can do to prevent it. The camera is in my bag when not in use.

Thanks,
Brent

[dmp-potn]

Hello,

I can't answer that question, but I have another. Since you have this lens, can you please tell me if it supports full-time manual focus? By that, I mean can you place the focus switch into AF, press the shutter button down half way (or press the '*' button, depending on your setup) to focus, and then grab the manual focus ring and adjust without flipping the AF/MF switch to MF?

According to Canon's website, this lens does not support FT-M, but that seems hard to believe.

Thanks in advance.

[Tsmith]

Been brought up a few times already as it seems to be something you'll have to live with in this lens. As long as its not effecting your photos is the thing to be most concerned about.

[LightRules]

can you please tell me if it supports full-time manual focus?

Yes, this lens has ring USM and FTM. Now go buy it.

[BrentBoshart]

... As long as its not effecting your photos is the thing to be most concerned about.

Yes, I guess that is what I am really asking, is dust doing to degrade the image to any extent or is it just blocking a minute amount of light? Otherwise, a fantastic lens.

Brent

[Bonjour43ma]

seems to be common with that lens

[nelsmama]

I wrote to Canon:
INQUIRY: I have heard from quite a few people that have this lens, that
alot of dust or lint gets sucked into it. could you explain how to have
this not be such a problem for such a lens, and what effect will the
dust make in photos?
can these lenses be sent to Canon for cleaning??
thankyou in advance

Their Response:

Thank you for contacting Canon product support. We value you as a Canon
customer and appreciate the opportunity to assist you with your EF-S
17-55mm inquiry.

Canon has not announced any issues with excessive dust issues with the
EF-S 17-55mm lens.

If dust enters the chamber it can block light if enough accumulates.

Canon will be happy to clean any lenses with an issue of dust.

We hope this information is helpful to you. Please feel free to contact
us again if you have any other questions or concerns with your EF-S
17-55mm lens inquiry.

Thank you for choosing Canon.

Sincerely,

Jason
Technical Support Representative

[ChopstickHero]

Their Response:

Thank you for contacting Canon product support. We value you as a Canon
customer and appreciate the opportunity to assist you with your EF-S
17-55mm inquiry.

Canon has not announced any issues with excessive dust issues with the
EF-S 17-55mm lens.

If dust enters the chamber it can block light if enough accumulates.

Canon will be happy to clean any lenses with an issue of dust.

We hope this information is helpful to you. Please feel free to contact
us again if you have any other questions or concerns with your EF-S
17-55mm lens inquiry.

Thank you for choosing Canon.

Sincerely,

Jason
Technical Support Representative

sounds like a robot.

[basroil]

sounds like a robot.

it is a robot... hate automated messages where they just change three fields..

[Wilt]

Those of you who have purchased the Canon 17-55 and experienced dust getting inside should start to be vocal in your complaints to Canon! This dust issue in the 17-55 is simply being encountered by owners all too frequently. If the public can raise an outcry about the 24-105 flare issue, it should be able to raise attention to the dust issue of the 17-55, too!

[BrentBoshart]

Well, it is a little ridiculous. I have not used this lens for more than a hour yet and I can count 12-14 specks of dust sitting on one internal lens element and again, this is indoors in a clean environment.

[syntrix]

Well, it is a little ridiculous. I have not used this lens for more than a hour yet and I can count 12-14 specks of dust sitting on one internal lens element and again, this is indoors in a clean environment.

Can you post the date code, and place/time you purchased from?

[BrentBoshart]

Can you post the date code, and place/time you purchased from?

I don't see a date code, it should be beside the rear element, right? It arrived last Thursday from B&H Photo. I have emailed them and Canon.

Brent

[billh101]

I have been watching the 17-55 2.8 IS Dust threads carefully and will continue to do so for the next few months. I don't know that anyone has actually been able to prove that it has degraded their image quality with this lens, but I wonder if it'll be the same situation once people have been able to use it for a year? I'm planning a big trip to Spain next year and want to take my 20D and one lens. It's maybe a once in a lifetime trip, so I'm considering buying this lens before I go. But, we'll see if this problem really is a problem long term and if Canon recognizes it and does anything to correct it. I'm keeping my fingers crossed, because this seems to be nearly a perfect lens otherwise.

[baybud]

remember canon will clean it for free only when its in warranty, otherwise i think there stand alone charge is about £80, this may vary between lens.

[cc10d]

I have used mine a lot, no noticable dust problem here. Just a great lens.

[BrentBoshart]

Responses from Canon USA and Canon Canada. I impressed that I received both in less than 24hrs.
I appreciate the USA response that they will make note of the problem and pass it along, hopefully they do.

Brent


Thank you for your E-mail inquiry regarding your EOS 30D.

Lenses are not 100% sealed so to prevent dust from entering the lens. However it is possible for dust to make its way in the lens. There are no known "sealing problems" with Canon lenses Brent.

Generally small specs of dust do not appear in the end image taken. If you feel there is a problem with your lens please, feel free to submit it to a service location for inspection. I recommend that you forward your product directly to our Service Department for inspection. Please include your name, address, daytime telephone number, copy of your bill of sale and a brief description of the symptom(s). Upon receipt, we will have a technician thoroughly inspect your product and advise you of the findings.

Listed below is the address for your convenience:

CANON CANADA INC.
1400 Courtneypark Dr E
Mississauga, ON, L5T 1H1
Tel.: 905/795-2005

_______________________________________________

Thank you for contacting Canon product support. We value you as a Canon
customer and appreciate the opportunity to assist you. I am sorry to
hear you are experiencing an issue with dust on your EF-S 17-55mm lens.

Canon has not announced any service notices for this lens. I am sorry
for any inconvenience.

Your comments are noted and will be passed along to the appropriate
party.

Thank you for taking the time to write.

If you begin to notice an image degradation issue, please forward the
lens to our factory for cleaning.

For factory service, please forward your lens to one of the Factory
Service Centers shown below. When shipping your lens, you are not
required to send any accessories (except lens caps). Be sure to include
your name, street address (no P.O. boxes, please), telephone number, and
a letter describing the issue with the product. If it has been less
than one year since the lens was purchased, we ask that you also include
proof of warranty in the form of a copy of your sales receipt.

As we do not provide RMA numbers for service, we suggest using a
trackable and insurable service (i.e. UPS, Federal Express, Priority
Mail) to ship your lens. Please package the lens very securely in a
sturdy shipping box to prevent damage during shipment.

Please send your lens to one of the following Factory Service Centers:

Canon Factory Service
100 Jamesburg Road
Jamesburg, NJ 08831
Telephone: (732) 521-7007

OR

Canon Factory Service
1440 Chase Avenue
Elk Grove Village, IL 60007
Telephone: (630) 250-6500

[Wilt]

Responses from Canon USA and Canon Canada. ..." Lenses are not 100% sealed so to prevent dust from entering the lens. However it is possible for dust to make its way in the lens. There are no known 'sealing problems' with Canon lenses "

So in spite of the fact that someone reports, "I've only taken maybe 3 dozen pictures and to my surprise the lens already has a lot of dust inside! " and says, "I have not used this lens for more than a hour yet and I can count 12-14 specks of dust sitting on one internal lens element and again, this is indoors in a clean environment", Canon denies any abnormality to this phenomenon! :mad:

[BrentBoshart]

So, I don't know what to do about this (dust in new 17-55). Return period has almost expired.

1. Return it for another. Maybe next one will be less dust prone? Some people are saying they have no problems. Or am I just wasting time and shipping expense to only be back where I started?

2. Return it for a 17-40L or Tamron 17-50 f/2.8

3. Just keep using it and try my best not to look at the dust because its such a sharp lens that its going to take a whole lost of dust before image quality falls to the lens mentioned in #2 :rolleyes:

Just bugging me to buy a $1000+ lens and in less than 2wks it has a lot of dust. I called Canon support and their answer was "Canon lens are sealed from dust", guess he was saying that I was untruthful? I called Canon service to find out the cost I can expect to have the lens cleaned when I thought it really needed it. They said they do not have a price list and quotations are only given upon seeing the lens. He would not offer an approximation.

So, what would you do? I want to move on from this dilemna!

Thanks,
Brent

[Servo'd]

it is a robot... hate automated messages where they just change three fields..

The whole message is robotic, or just everthing but 3 sentences?

I emailed papermate once to ask if they made a certain model of pen (I wasn't able to find it in stores) and the entire message given back was robotic. Didn't even come close to answer my question.

And then they have the nerve to make it have an email address like jparson@papermate.com or something, and sign it like a person.

It should really be r2d2@papermate.com, or signed, Robot d340x98293a

[JNunn]

So, I don't know what to do about this (dust in new 17-55). Return period has almost expired.

1. Return it for another. Maybe next one will be less dust prone? Some people are saying they have no problems. Or am I just wasting time and shipping expense to only be back where I started?

2. Return it for a 17-40L or Tamron 17-50 f/2.8

3. Just keep using it and try my best not to look at the dust because its such a sharp lens that its going to take a whole lost of dust before image quality falls to the lens mentioned in #2 :rolleyes:

Just bugging me to buy a $1000+ lens and in less than 2wks it has a lot of dust. I called Canon support and their answer was "Canon lens are sealed from dust", guess he was saying that I was untruthful? I called Canon service to find out the cost I can expect to have the lens cleaned when I thought it really needed it. They said they do not have a price list and quotations are only given upon seeing the lens. He would not offer an approximation.

So, what would you do? I want to move on from this dilemna!

Thanks,
Brent

I'd return it. I know there's probably very little chance that the dust will accumulate enough to degrade the image quality, but after spending that kind of money, I wouldn't want to see dust, period.

[EOS mE]

can anyone confirm if the 17-55 f2.8 is sealed? cuz i'm starting to see dust in mine already. the first day it was here.. there was 3 spek of dust, then i didnt worry about it. but now i see a small thread of fabric in there. i was like how in the world did that get in there???

so what should i do? it's not really bothering my photos, at least i don't think so..

[syntrix]

can anyone confirm if the 17-55 f2.8 is sealed? cuz i'm starting to see dust in mine already. the first day it was here.. there was 3 spek of dust, then i didnt worry about it. but now i see a small thread of fabric in there. i was like how in the world did that get in there???

so what should i do? it's not really bothering my photos, at least i don't think so..

I've heard it's partially sealed, but someone should confirm that.

It would bug me if there's visible dust though, that's why I'm still sitting on the fence on this one.

Also, I recall reading somewhere that there is NO date code on the lense, so it might be hard to tell from early and recent production lenses.

[EOS mE]

I've heard it's partially sealed, but someone should confirm that.

It would bug me if there's visible dust though, that's why I'm still sitting on the fence on this one.

Also, I recall reading somewhere that there is NO date code on the lense, so it might be hard to tell from early and recent production lenses.

doh! you would think that for a lense of that pricing canon would do a 100% sealing on the lense. after all... don't they want the prosumer to spend more time using it then sending it back for cleaning??

as for no date code.. tonight, i'm going to check the box to see if there's anything on there...

[Rellik]

FWIW, I've had my 17-55 for a month now and haven't detected any dust inside the lens. I use it alot in my room and I can tell you that there are lots of dust in the air. With the room fan and computer fans going, I've taken pictures, zooming in and out with no problems so far. So, I think the problem depends on the lens that you have. If you can still return it, I would suggest to get another copy.

And regarding the tamron 17-50, well after using the 17-55, you just can't go back to using that, at least I couldn't. The IS, focus accuracy, focus noise, and lowlight focusing is just one of the many few things that makes the 17-55 better. Of course it costs more, but you've already bought one so you can afford it.

[BrentBoshart]

No date code but I don't know if serial numbers are helpful, mine is 17102364. The dust is really fine but visible. Probably about 14-18 on one element and 4 on another closer to the front (only 1.5wks!). I really love the lens otherwise, so I think I will try another copy and hope for the best. Btw, it did have some dust right out of the box, maybe someone else returned it? But, it is encouraging that some are not having dust problems.

[Dellboy]

Just my 2 cents:

Dust many not be a problem for normal shooting but for inducing flare it can be a nightmare. Many a good landscape shoot can be ruined be a few specs of dust especially with a wide angle lens.

If you can get a free clean or a new lens - I'd say go for it.

[mrkgoo]

update on my lens ---> More dust.

[ed rader]

sounds like a robot.

yeah, mr. roboto...:).

ed rader

[Prelude]

I've just bought a 30D and a 17-55 f2.8.

There was no (visible) dust inside the lens when I bought it, and so far, after doing some shooting at lunch time, none as yet.

When I bought the lens I knew some ppl had issues with dust, but thought I'd take the 'risk' given that there is no one lens that has it's features.

Will keep you all updated.

[tommy_london]

No dust problems with mine either - have done a few shoots in dusty old churches recently too but so far so good.

[harrydog]

I'm a happy new 30D owner. Unfortunately I ordered the 17-85 when I ordered the camera and while it's an OK lens, it's nothing special. I was going to return it to B&H but to my horror, I discovered that the box it came in had been thrown out by mistake. But I do plan to sell it and replace it with either the 17-40 f/4.0 or the 17-55 f/2.8. I'm also waiting right now for the UPS man to deliver my 70-200 f/4.0, which I think in conjunction with the 17-55 f/2.8 would cover most of what I would need for the time being.
I compared the Canon to the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 in the store and the Canon was much nicer. But here's a dumb question...how do you look for dust inside the lens? And someone mentioned dust on a front and rear element - how can you tell which element has dust on it?

[BrentBoshart]

And someone mentioned dust on a front and rear element - how can you tell which element has dust on it?

If you don't know then we are not going to tell so you don't obsess like the rest of us.:D In my case, it was obvious, you could see the dust clearly inside the lens, not on the front or rear, and of course it did not blow off when cleaning.

I got a return authorization today and will be exchanging it for another 17-55. It seems by people's replies that some are better than others for dust sealing. Hopefully, I will get a better copy this time around. If I don't then I just assume this is just the way it is with this lens and live with it, but otherwise I will always be wondering and maybe regretting that I did not try.

The big question is how much dust really does affect image quality. I personally think, very little if not at all in most cases, however, I do agree with a previous poster that in adverse conditions with strong backlighting, dust could add to flare or lack of overall contrast. Its hard to quantify this. My other concern is resale value of a dusty lens.

I fully expect all my lens to have internal dust at some point but just felt this particular 17-55 was very excess. By posting, I do not want to add to an internet rumour that all 17-55 lenses are dust suckers, I can only say for sure that one was!

Thanks to everyone who helped me make a decision.

[EOS mE]

brent.. u know what i noticed last night. when it's at 17mm, i can see the dust.. but when i zoomed out to 55mm and then back.. some of the dust is gone. i'm not sure if i'm seeing things or what.. but it's not there anymore.. no longer visible at 17mm.

i'm just worried because if this issue is present in the 17-55mm.. i wonder what it's like in the 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM that i'm getting soon. *getting nervous*

[BrentBoshart]

Actually, my situation was opposite. I noticed the dust more when zooming to 55 as it magnified the element that it was sitting on. There is no way that you are going to have this issue with your 70-200. As you can see by signature I have 3 other lenses now and they have zero dust inside and they are not L lens.

[EOS mE]

humm.. good. can't wait..........

[harrydog]

I fully expect all my lens to have internal dust at some point but just felt this particular 17-55 was very excess.

I never remember even hearing about noticeable dust inside a lens before these discussions regarding the 17-55 began. Maybe it's been an issue with other lenses in the past and I just never heard about it...?

[Dellboy]

But here's a dumb question...how do you look for dust inside the lens? And someone mentioned dust on a front and rear element - how can you tell which element has dust on it?

If you want to check for dust, greasy smears, scratchs, ect then I'd recommend using a small LED type torch. Shine it down the lens and any bit of dust on or in the lens will show up clearly. You should also be able to see/guess where it is. However because this method is so good try not to get paranoid over any small fleck you may see.

[curiousgeorge]

There's an easy way to find out if your lens is sealed: blow through the back.

[syntrix]

Well, I just ordered a new one. It better not be someone's returned dusty lens ;)

[BrentBoshart]

Well, I just ordered a new one. It better not be someone's returned dusty lens ;)

hehe... sorry about that!

[EOS mE]

Well, I just ordered a new one. It better not be someone's returned dusty lens ;)

:lol: don't worry.. it'll be a refurbished one.. j/k... ;)

hopefully the new copy you get will be dustfree

[syntrix]

:lol: don't worry.. it'll be a refurbished one.. j/k... ;)

hopefully the new copy you get will be dustfree


LOL ;)

I really hope it was just some early copies with the dust problem. I'll let y'all know what I find when it arrives!

[EOS mE]

sounds good~~

[zacwolf]

anyone else have stories?

i want this lens

but 1k is alot of money to spend on a dust sucker

[syntrix]

anyone else have stories?

i want this lens

but 1k is alot of money to spend on a dust sucker

I just got my lens from B&H (ordered on Wed), 0 dust inside!!!!!!!!! I took some sample pics and they are awesome, I can't wait to get out into the real world tomorrow morning and get some more pics!

I did zoom in and out and look in from front and back in direct sunlight. NO DUST!!!! Wow, I'm in love already!!

[zacwolf]

I just got my lens from B&H (ordered on Wed), 0 dust inside!!!!!!!!! I took some sample pics and they are awesome, I can't wait to get out into the real world tomorrow morning and get some more pics!

I did zoom in and out and look in from front and back in direct sunlight. NO DUST!!!! Wow, I'm in love already!!

post some samples when you get the chance!

[mrkgoo]

For some reason, I decided to do some more vigorous testing with my lenses (you know the drill, tripod, mirror lockup, same settings etc.)...and my preliminary results from comparing the efs 17-552.8IS to teh kit efs18-55 at the same apertures is...well...not that favourable for the 17-55. I mean, sure it is good, but not breathtakingly so.

I was always under the impression that the kit lens was pretty good under cotnrolled use, and that my copy was even better (it seemed)... but do I haver a dud 17-55? or an amazing 18-55?

[syntrix]

post some samples when you get the chance!


All hand held at 2.8 and iso 100 from around the (messy) kitchen, all exif should be intact, raw to simple DPP resize:

http://www.lasvegastech.com/17-55_is_test/IMG_0798.JPG

http://www.lasvegastech.com/17-55_is_test/IMG_0799.JPG


edit: this one is focused and exposed on the bottle of OFF:
http://www.lasvegastech.com/17-55_is_test/IMG_0801.JPG

I have some other handheld shots for some documentary work, the IS saved my butt. But I'm not going to be able to post those up.

[syntrix]

and FWIW, the sn on mine is 19603758

If others can post theirs, we might be able to see if there were early problems?

[EOS mE]

EDITED: mine is 18302218 from B&H puchased on 7/26/06/

[mizuno]

Mine is 18303688, but I've only had it a few days, so I can't comment on the dust issue until I really put it to the test.

[syntrix]

So you two have an 18****** and I have a 19******

Let us all know your comments about the lens and if you have found any internal dust.

Maybe even post who you got it from? I got mine from B&H.

[JimAskew]

Hi,

My 17-55 EF-S IS Serial # is: 15000319. I got it in late May this year.

I have no dust issues and no image IQ issues. It is a serperb lens and has not been off my black dRebel 350D since early June. I have taken over 2,000 shots with it so far.

[syntrix]

Outstanding everyone! Thanks for the SN's and the input! I'm loving this lens for real world work, and IS has saved me SOOOOO much time in tripod setups.

Sure you can't slow down your subject, but in those other cases with static objects, the low light 2.8 on this lens is outstanding!!!!

Anyone watch F1 on speed tonight? I could have swore I saw this lens on some of the photog's bodies, no RED line at all ;) But it would have only been a 30/20d or a rebel :lol:

[EOS mE]

Mine is 18303688, but I've only had it a few days, so I can't comment on the dust issue until I really put it to the test.

yeah put it to the test. i've shot about 2-3K worth of photos with my 17-55... since it's my only lense right now. it does have some dust in there.

i don't think i can return that back to B&H now to get a new copy, since it's over 2.5 months time.

so, anyone here had sent in their 17-55 in for cleaning and then get it resealed or something like that where they don't see anymore dust??

[EOS mE]

Outstanding everyone! Thanks for the SN's and the input! I'm loving this lens for real world work, and IS has saved me SOOOOO much time in tripod setups.

Sure you can't slow down your subject, but in those other cases with static objects, the low light 2.8 on this lens is outstanding!!!!

Anyone watch F1 on speed tonight? I could have swore I saw this lens on some of the photog's bodies, no RED line at all ;) But it would have only been a 30/20d or a rebel :lol:

yup.. i love this lense very much... (thanks to jamiewexler). this lense in low light wide open at iso3200 is a lightsucker... got some noise too, but couple passes through NN, it's all good in the hood; just don't pixel peep. ;)

[Caveman2]

I'm a happy new 30D owner. Unfortunately I ordered the 17-85 when I ordered the camera and while it's an OK lens, it's nothing special. I was going to return it to B&H but to my horror, I discovered that the box it came in had been thrown out by mistake. But I do plan to sell it and replace it with either the 17-40 f/4.0 or the 17-55 f/2.8.

I'm just now looking at your message and it is 6 days old, but here's my 2 cents worth:

If you are only going to use a 30D, 20D, or Rebel, get the 17-55. If you think you might want a 5D or a 1D, you may want to consider the 17-40. Like you, I too am dissapoihnted with the 17-85 for the price. I'm VERY pleased with the 17-55. A really good fast wide lens with IS - GREAT lens!

BTW, dust hasn't been a problem with itm but here lies the answer you all have been looking for:
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1755_28/index.htm

[EOS mE]

BTW, dust hasn't been a problem with itm but here lies the answer you all have been looking for:
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1755_28/index.htm

Thanks for the link Caveman!

Copied from the link: "The lens does not provide any protection against dust or humidity."

so, perhaps the reason why it doesn't protect against dust and humidity is because it's not fully sealed?

i wish they would have resolved this, maybe all it needs it to be 100% properly sealed?

** here's the big question... anyone here had some dust particles in their 17-55 and sent it in for cleaning and got to sealed? but most importantly, now they are not seeing any dust after months of use???

[peanuthead]

My serial number is 19004038.
I had originally purchased Canon 24-105mm 4L for my 30D, partly based on the fear of the "dust issue" with 17-55mm, but in the end, realized 24mm was not wide enough and F4.0 was not fast enough.
I decided to take a risk and returned the 24-105mm and bought 17-55mm - could not be happier. And no dust so far, after a couple of weeks.
I do wonder if the "dust issue" is mainly limited to earlier production models.

[SpiltPickle]

Mine's serial number is 18304###
No dust so far, but I've only had it for a little over a week, and I haven't taken too many shots with it yet (my equally new 70-200 f/2.8L is usm was riding on the 20d most of the week and weekend)

Down fall of buying expensive lens locally. You get old stock. :) We'll see how it does.

[EOS mE]

Mine's serial number is 18304###
No dust so far, but I've only had it for a little over a week, and I haven't taken too many shots with it yet (my equally new 70-200 f/2.8L is usm was riding on the 20d most of the week and weekend)

Down fall of buying expensive lens locally. You get old stock. :) We'll see how it does.

yeah definitely let me know how yours stood up against the dust bunnies. looks like perhaps we got it from the same lot.

also, i didn't buy mine locally and i don't think many here bought locally. i got mine from B&H, and i'm just sad it had some dust. but then again, the 17-55 isn't seal against dust or humidity. so hopefully canon can find a way to seal it so paying over 1K for this lens and having it dust free will be worth it.

[EOS mE]

i have a theory... not sure if it is true or not. i've noticed that when you zoom in and out of the 17-55mm... it has a higher tendency to suck in dust. cuz if i'm at the beach taking shots, before i zoom back out.. i would wipe the tube before doing so. but even so, still had some dust... :(

[Prelude]

Mine is a 18xxxx as well, had it for a few weeks and no dust at all.

[zacwolf]

hoping to here any info on whether the new ones are better sealed than the old ones

[EOS mE]

well, i've emailed canon service and they said for me to send it in for cleaning. but i've asked them if whether or not it will be resealed properly.. and they didn't answer me at all :(

[zacwolf]

well, i've emailed canon service and they said for me to send it in for cleaning. but i've asked them if whether or not it will be resealed properly.. and they didn't answer me at all :(
i want this lens very badly but this thread is making me think twice:(

[syntrix]

i want this lens very badly but this thread is making me think twice:(

That was me a few weeks ago! I ordered it and have no buyer's remorse, but I don't have dust ;)

[EOS mE]

i want this lens very badly but this thread is making me think twice:(

honestly.. this lense is the BOMB.. without a DOUBT! the dust in the lense won't effect the photos, unless if it's covering up the whole lense. it'll be too small to see.

just some of us are very picky and would think that a lense that cost over 1K shouldn't even have dust to began with.

so for me.. i can't send mine in until i have more lense. so perhaps when i get my 50 f1.4, then i'll send it in for cleaning.

i just hope they will seal it nice and tight.. so i don't have any more dust problems.. or should i wait and see if more dust is being collected inside before sending it in?

[BrentBoshart]

Just a follow-up to my original post, I ended up exchanging my lens for another one. I've had it about a week now and so far absolutely no internal dust whereas the first one had about 20 internal dust particles at this point.

[agedbriar]

As I am contemplating the purchase of a 30D with this lens, I've read this thread with great interest.

An idea came to my mind that could explain the wildly different experience concerning dust reported above.

What if the observed specks are not from external dust but rather particles of plastic rubbed off the internal threads instead? That could happen due to an inferior surface smoothness in the threads, caused by a thread cutter that should have been replaced sooner. It would account for the inconsistency of the issue: sharp cutter initially - worn out cutter at the and of the batch. And then again. Wish yourself luck.

If my assumption is correct, the users who reported lots of dust after just a couple of weeks use should also have observed the accumulation of specks to gradually decrease and eventually stop. In such a case a single cleaning would fix the problem, external dust not being the real (main) source. That would finally mean that EF-S 17-55 users could operate in a less then totally dust-free environment with greater ease of mind.

[ScottE]

I have used my 17-55 in some very dusty environments with no dust problems. I don't know why some people have problems, but I doubt it is pieces of the lens case breaking off. It is possible that a poor batch of lenses were released that had a deffective fitting between the two telescoping pieces of the lens barrel. Most of the other lenses seem to be OK.

[mrkgoo]

Aged Briar...I had my lens for 5 months, and accumulated dust like a vacuum. No signs of stopping. I don't think it's from inside threading. The dust is very, well, dust-like. It is white. I sent it in for cleaning (I requested it be done under warranty). I have purchased a 77mm UV filter, because I think it may help in future dust accumulation.

If you have read my previous posts, I believe that at least some of the dust might enter the front element. The way I see it, I buty an expsensive filter, but it saves me from having to send the lens in for cleaning every 6 months.

I will keep people posted if this has any effect on my lens (but still not definitive - mayeb they will fix teh dust issue when it is being cleaned!).

[CyberPet]

Dust still doesn't bother me, what bothers me is some rumors about the IS dying. But it might also be the first batches, as it's those who've had the lens for 6+ months who reports that, while those who had the lens for 2-3 months hasn't seen/heard any problems yet. I'm keeping mine!

[JimAskew]

Dust still doesn't bother me, what bothers me is some rumors about the IS dying. But it might also be the first batches, as it's those who've had the lens for 6+ months who reports that, while those who had the lens for 2-3 months hasn't seen/heard any problems yet. I'm keeping mine!

I bought mine in June...shot two weddings...1,000s of grandkid shots...indoors and out...no dust...not a speck. I'm keeping my copy too :)

[Caveman2]

It is white. I sent it in for cleaning (I requested it be done under warranty). I have purchased a 77mm UV filter, because I think it may help in future dust accumulation.

If you have read my previous posts, I believe that at least some of the dust might enter the front element. The way I see it, I buty an expsensive filter, but it saves me from having to send the lens in for cleaning every 6 months.


There's a white "chunk" just inside the first element of my 17-85 (not my 17-55). It's been there since a month after I bought it over a year ago. Having to have to use it instead of being free to send it back, it's still there. No noticable image problems. I use a SMC Hoya filter on every lens I have as a protecter and have seen no additional dust. I should have sent it in to get it cleaned after I got the 17-55 so now the 17-85 sets on the shelf gathering dust all over it- not having looked through it for a year to see if any additional white chunks or anything else is in it.

My 17-55 has been outside and in many various environments -a lot- with it's filter, and no dust or white chunks of any kind inside.

Dust on the sensor- that's another story. I've gained lots of experienced at cleaning that now.

[mmahoney]

Given the lens design (external change in length) I think a certain amount of dust is going to find it's way inside no matter how good the sealing.

But the real question is does this minute amount of dust affect your images? .. I don't think so unless there is quite a bit of it and it's settled on one of the rear elements.
Mike

[Wilt]

Given the lens design (external change in length) I think a certain amount of dust is going to find it's way inside no matter how good the sealing.

But the real question is does this minute amount of dust affect your images? .. I don't think so unless there is quite a bit of it and it's settled on one of the rear elements.
Mike

dust on the rear element won't be seen any better or worse than dust on the front element.

[mrkgoo]

Given the lens design (external change in length) I think a certain amount of dust is going to find it's way inside no matter how good the sealing.

But the real question is does this minute amount of dust affect your images? .. I don't think so unless there is quite a bit of it and it's settled on one of the rear elements.
Mike

Small amount of dust doesn't bother me. But 4-5 months after I got the 17-55, which was absolutely dust free when I bought it, it has gathered a number of large dustspecks, with a total of close to 40-50 overall within the first few elements. I don't use it in particularly dusty conditions.

[jjmucker]

Small amount of dust doesn't bother me. But 4-5 months after I got the 17-55, which was absolutely dust free when I bought it, it has gathered a number of large dustspecks, with a total of close to 40-50 overall within the first few elements. I don't use it in particularly dusty conditions.


are these noticible on image?

[narlus]

ok, for those of you who have other telescoping lenses (like the Bigma), is dust a big issue for those lenses as well?

[mrkgoo]

are these noticible on image?

How am I supposed to know? I don't have an image that I took from 'before 50 dust specks' that is comaprable to one I took 'after 50 dust specks'.

I suspect there's a slight loss in contrast, but hard to compare non identical conditions, right?

[jjmucker]

How am I supposed to know? I don't have an image that I took from 'before 50 dust specks' that is comaprable to one I took 'after 50 dust specks'.

I suspect there's a slight loss in contrast, but hard to compare non identical conditions, right?

calm it. all i meant was can you notice the dust speks on your images.

[mrkgoo]

calm it. all i meant was can you notice the dust speks on your images.

I wasn't angry, just an honest question about how I can possibly check. Maybe I should take a picture somewhere on a tripod when I get it back, adn if dust accumulates again, take another picture to compare with - but what kind of picture would be good to check for such loss in image quality?

[jjmucker]

I wasn't angry, just an honest question about how I can possibly check. Maybe I should take a picture somewhere on a tripod when I get it back, adn if dust accumulates again, take another picture to compare with - but what kind of picture would be good to check for such loss in image quality?


no worries mate :D
em, not actually sure what kind of photo you could take to compare. maybe a long exposure at night. that could maybe show them up, although, if your taking everyday shots and dont notice anything i wouldn't bother too much about it.
in saying that, ive said this before. you pay all this money for a lens, you dont expect any sort of thing like this happening regardless if you cant see anything wrong with it.
i really want this lens too :D

[august23]

tsk...and i was considering this lens too. maybe one day we'll see the announcment of a 17-55 f/2.8 MKII :) but i doubt it.

[Glenn NK]

Darn, I did all the research (including reading all the owner comments on Fred Miranda), and agnozied over the 10/22 and the 17/55. What sold me on the 17/55 was the IQ and f/2.8.

Yesterday afternoon (27 jan 06) I bought the 17/55, and now seeing this thread, I'm again agonizing over the decision (I can return it for the 10/22).

And now CyberPet mentions hearing of a dying IS system. What else do I need to make me return it for the 10/22?

As I recall, this problem was never mentioned in any of the FM user reviews.

Decisions, decisions, decisions.:confused:

[syntrix]

Glenn, congrats on joining the ranks of the 17-55. Get it in hand and go shoot, you are gonna love it!

Now.... I got a sunny clear sky day here today. Anyone want to see some blue sky pics with a little bit of dust in the lens?

[syntrix]

Arrrrgh. I need to clean my sensor, it's not dust in the lens that is showing. I tried with another lens for the same test, and the spots I'm seeing are there with both lenses, in the same exact spots.... grrrrr.

[Caveman2]

"tsk...and i was considering this lens too. maybe one day we'll see the announcment of a 17-55 f/2.8 MKII but i doubt it."

"Darn, I did all the research (including reading all the owner comments on Fred Miranda), and agnozied over the 10/22 and the 17/55. What sold me on the 17/55 was the IQ and f/2.8.

Yesterday afternoon (27 jan 06) I bought the 17/55, and now seeing this thread, I'm again agonizing over the decision (I can return it for the 10/22).

And now CyberPet mentions hearing of a dying IS system. What else do I need to make me return it for the 10/22?"

Cyberpet mentioned "rumors" so how about a real source? If there are listed accounts about an IS problem I'd like to know, but "rumors?" Having a 10-20mm lens I'll tell you straight up, one is not a replacement for another and unless you just do a LOT of very wide angle shoots, the 17-55 is going to be what you will most likely use most often.

If you already have this lens, USE IT WITHOUT FEAR and enjoy it! I absolutely LOVE it.

If you are considering getting this lens because of its optics, performance, speed and focal range, then seriously consider it. 90% of the people who own them and use them are not complaining about dust, or anything else. Why? They don't have a problem with it so why bother?

I sometimes shoot for a magazine and under close scrutiny the photo editors can see no problems with any dust form either the older 17-85 (which has a sizeable white chunk in it and they have used photos shot with it) and the 17-55 which is clean. I do lots of outdoor shooting from railroad track equipment while operating, farm and country scenes, operating wood shops, operating antique thrashing machines and flour mills, historic reenactments where smoke from campfires and black powder fills the air, interiors of fine homes, weddings every once in a while, musical performers on stage, and a range of other personal interest things mostly having to do with the outdoors. So I have shot in smoky, dirty environments and very clean environments and the end results have to be suitable for reproduction. No problems. Take reasonable care in dusty conditions, if you ever shoot an any conditions like I shoot, and you'll be fine.

You will have much more trouble with dust on your sensor, especially if you change lenses in environments like I shoot, than anything/everything inside a lens, unless it is practically fogged, at which point you will be sending it back to Canon.

The 17-55 stays on the camera and is my most used lens in about all situations. I use auto focus a lot. I've loaned the older 17-85 out for a week to a friend who just wanted to try it, but like all the rest of my gear, I'll never loan the 17-55. It will never leave my sight.

Let the copy you get stand on it's own merit. Like any other piece of equipment, especially lenses now days, if you have any real trouble with it, return it for another one and try it or get it fixed. Otherwise, use it.

BTW, there is still NO dust or specks of any kind inside my 17-55.

[Caveman2]

Arrrrgh. I need to clean my sensor, it's not dust in the lens that is showing. I tried with another lens for the same test, and the spots I'm seeing are there with both lenses, in the same exact spots.... grrrrr.

Changing the focal length with your zoom is another test.

Dust on the sensor is a fact of life for DSLR users and cleaning the sensor will become a routine chore. Two sealed bodies and two sealed zoom lenses will only lengthen the time between cleanings besides taking a huge bite out of your wallet.:)

[Caveman2]

ok, for those of you who have other telescoping lenses (like the Bigma), is dust a big issue for those lenses as well?

The 100-400 Canon, which is a "pump" zoom, and dust in the lens is NOT a problem at all for me, not having any dust inside the lens to begin with. Images are clean and contrasty.

If dust gets on the sensor it is most likely while changing lenses, not by using the pump zoom.

I've used this lens in various outdoor settings where dust and smoke are present. See one of my other posts on this thread concerning shooting conditions.

Use a super multicoated filter, keep it clean, and use a good lens hood. If/when you shoot in the direction of bright light sources temporarly remove the filter to reduce reflections.

[syntrix]

Yup, and I change 'em very often. Zoom was a part of the test I did, same spots in the same places. Time to blow off the sensor!

[mrkgoo]

Ok, I have my EFS 17-55 back from Canon servicing, where I demanded it be cleaned under warranty, as the dust was unacceptable for a 5month old lens.

And well, it has come back, as new. Some dust but nowhere near as bad as I had it. And the image Qualty is superb. Perhaps better than it was before. Sharp, contrasty, and nice focus. I'll give it a better whirl in the coming days, but it's like how this lens was supposed to be when I first got it. I don't know what Canon did to it, but it even feel smooth when I zoom it. On the srevice sheet it says - disassembled, cleaned, reassembled, tested.

And well, it seems awesome now. I slapped on a Helipoan SH-PMC filter, and I don't intend on taking it off, so we'll see how my dust issues goes from here.

[constrict]

Ok, I have my EFS 17-55 back from Canon servicing, where I demanded it be cleaned under warranty, as the dust was unacceptable for a 5month old lens.

And well, it has come back, as new. Some dust but nowhere near as bad as I had it. And the image Qualty is superb. Perhaps better than it was before. Sharp, contrasty, and nice focus. I'll give it a better whirl in the coming days, but it's like how this lens was supposed to be when I first got it. I don't know what Canon did to it, but it even feel smooth when I zoom it. On the srevice sheet it says - disassembled, cleaned, reassembled, tested.

And well, it seems awesome now. I slapped on a Helipoan SH-PMC filter, and I don't intend on taking it off, so we'll see how my dust issues goes from here.

how long does it take from the time you send it out for it to be serviced and sent back? I mean, for someone who only has one really nice zoom (the 17-55) how could you deal without having it if you don't have a backup.

[august23]

how long does it take from the time you send it out for it to be serviced and sent back? I mean, for someone who only has one really nice zoom (the 17-55) how could you deal without having it if you don't have a backup.

Easily, you don't go outside. :lol:

[mrkgoo]

how long does it take from the time you send it out for it to be serviced and sent back? I mean, for someone who only has one really nice zoom (the 17-55) how could you deal without having it if you don't have a backup.

I actually dropped it in at Canon service centre. It took about 2 and half weeks. The actual job only takes a day, especially if you're just cleaning. Mine was part of repairs service, so don't know what red tape it has to get aroound there.

It was sitting there for two weeks before I called, and asked, and then they did it the next day, and I got it back after that.

just an update...there's a bit of dust behind teh first element now...but it could just be me, since I have been a bit fickle and have been removing the UV to clean some other marks off. But I'll probably leave it on from now.

[simoncwr]

Alway's nice to see the Canon forum bitchin' about their lenses! My 17-55 is totally pristene, I have a dry cupboard on order to keep it that way..

[mrkgoo]

Alway's nice to see the Canon forum bitchin' about their lenses! My 17-55 is totally pristene, I have a dry cupboard on order to keep it that way..

I paid $1600 for this lens, I think it would be nice if I didn't ahve to pay $60 every 6 months on top of that to have it serviced.

I guess I could also keep my copy pristine if I never used it, except for perhaps taking pictures of the back of a dry cupboard.

;)

[John Nicholas]

This lens need to be sealed for the money they charge............

But as long as people keep buying them canon will never fix the problem............

[Stonedturtle]

sounds like a robot.

hahahahah .... :lol:

[sblais]

This lens need to be sealed for the money they charge............

But as long as people keep buying them canon will never fix the problem............

I totally agree. We should stop buying this... (*pressing the Buy button at B&H*)... D'Oh!

[Choderboy]

This lens need to be sealed for the money they charge............

But as long as people keep buying them canon will never fix the problem............

Just wondering , if they seal it , how is the air going to get inside when it is extended (and how is the air going to escape when retracting)?

[Collin85]

Just wondering , if they seal it , how is the air going to get inside when it is extended (and how is the air going to escape when retracting)?

Don't forget that most people don't use a sealed body like the 1DsMkII.

[ErikM]

My 17-55 2.8 IS arrived today. My local store was out of stock so they ordered one in for me. I just opened it up, popped a Hoya SHMC Pro1 UV on it and it looks MINT. Not a single speck of dust out of the box (as it should be).

I will be using it ALOT in the next coming weeks and will keep everyone updated on the dust status. I will also post the serial number when I get home from work.

[ErikM]

Ok it has been one week and I have ZERO dust. I have taken approx. 1000 shots at all sorts of focal lengths. I am EXTREMELY happy with this lens!!

[august23]

Well Erik I had posted in general chat kind of lightly about the topic, but I'd rather get more serious about it. There's a question of the 17-55's color that I brought up. I said it has very natural/neutral color rendition, as opposed to L glass's rich color rendition. I could be wrong, but I wanted to know what you think. It's not a fault, just a preference.

[ErikM]

I spent over 10 hours yesterday shooting a very large reptile collection. I used both my 17-55 and my 70-200. I was VERY impressed with the colour rendition of the 17-55. As a matter of fact I find everything about the 17-55 to be on par with L series glass besides the plastic build, which doesn't really bother me all that much either. :D When did you purchase your 17-55?

PS. Check back later tonight I am going to post some of the images from yesterday to give you an idea of how nice the colour is on this lens.

[jjmucker]

my friend recently bought this lens and has had no dust issues,
he seems to have more issues with lens flare, though since he bought the hood this has helped though it still shows on some images.
anyone on here have the same issue?

[ErikM]

I don't have many flare issues unless I am shooting directly at the sun. In this case your most likely always going to have flare. What type of conditions are producing flare for your friend? I have not experienced any flare issues with any type of lighting except for direct sun.

[jjmucker]

well, not all of his shots that had flare were DIRECTLY pointing at the sun but the sun was out, maybe just out frame. as i said the lens hood does help massively but there is definetly a lens flare problem there

[jklewer]

ErikM, I am right with you. Zero dust, uncanny IQ, flare looking directly at sun. Overall... incredible lens and a very good purchase.

[jjmucker]

yip, im with you's too. its a lens i will be purchasing when i get enough cash.
the IQ is superb, and i even think the build is great even though alot of folk say that its not.
still not accepting that canon dont give the hood though with the purchase and have the balls to charge £30 for it.
although they know that we will pay that for it so why would they throw it on for nothing eh. :(
IMO the only thing i think that lets it down is the lens flare occasionally, at least on my friends copy anyway

[august23]

I got mine a couple weeks ago. Idk. To me the colors are very natural. When I had the 70-200 f/4L non-is, the colors were extremely vibrant and rich. It's not a fault like I said, just a preference. Online samples of the 17-55 show this as well. Which is why I wanted to see if maybe we are all just shooting very boring colored things!

[Glenn NK]

OK, I'm reporting back after three weeks of use with this lens - 17/55 f/2.8 EFS IS USM:

Since I bought it, it's been on my 30D quite a bit more than the 24/105L.

I just checked both lenses by removing both lens caps, and looking through them from rear to front at a very bright light. Neither lens has any dust at all.

However since buying the 17/55, I have been taking some precautions with both lenses:

1. Before zooming out, I wipe around the outer end of the zoom ring to ensure that no dust is on the barrel. When zoom lenses zoom out, the volume increases and air must enter the lens to enable it to expand (the gas laws). If there is no dust on the barrel, it can't get sucked in.

2. Don't zoom in an out needlessly (see item one).

3. I have two lenses - the spare goes into a plastic bag in my camera case. Poly bags do not generat any dust - cloth bags do. When cloth fibres wear, the result is dust.

4. I don't bother holding the camera any special way to keep dust out (dust floats so it's pointless).

Maybe I got one of the non-leaky ones. SN 16,303,479

It was made on Wednesday.;) :)

EDIT:
I find the build almost as good as the 24/105L - it zooms smoothly (not quite as smooth and the L), and there is no wobble to the rings.

The colour matches my first lens (24/105L) so that's good, and the IQ is at least as good. Fortunately, the lens hood from the 24/105 (made for a FF), doesn't vignette on the 17/55, so one hood serves both.

[TurboDean]

Maybe Canon quietly made some improvement on the current runs or this lens??

[Collin85]

Maybe Canon quietly made some improvement on the current runs or this lens??

That's what I thought. The dust issue, although somewhat prominently reported on internet forums, hasn't really ever been something more widely reported in general. Certainly not severe enough in terms of media (not widely criticised or known by the public) and the effects of this flaw (doesn't affect IQ) to warranty a recall from Canon. A design flaw perhaps, but not exactly serious enough to be called a 'defect' (which WOULD warrant a recall). Hence a smart business move would have been to simply deny it (I haven't heard one Canon center admitting to it's existence based on forumite postings) and discreetly fix the flaws of the first batch(es) and move on.

[easty207]

3 + Months, 1000 shots, NO dust so far. I love the lens and hope it stays clean.

[mrkgoo]

That's what I thought. The dust issue, although somewhat prominently reported on internet forums, hasn't really ever been something more widely reported in general. Certainly not severe enough in terms of media (not widely criticised or known by the public) and the effects of this flaw (doesn't affect IQ) to warranty a recall from Canon. A design flaw perhaps, but not exactly serious enough to be called a 'defect' (which WOULD warrant a recall). Hence a smart business move would have been to simply deny it (I haven't heard one Canon center admitting to it's existence based on forumite postings) and discreetly fix the flaws of the first batch(es) and move on.

It's damned frustrating for me though.

[chet79]

if you put a UV filter on the end, will this prevent dust getting inside? sorry if this has already been covered - I've not read all 8 pages ot the thread :)

[august23]

it will certainly help. dust enteres through the front of the lens, as air escapes and is sucked back in by zooming the lens in and out.

[Glenn NK]

it will certainly help. dust enteres through the front of the lens, as air escapes and is sucked back in by zooming the lens in and out.

It could, but I strongly suspect that dust enters between the zoom ring and the barrel of the lens. Just to confirm the above suspicion, I did the following test.

Using a business card curved to fit the curvature of the lens barrel, I found the following:

1. The business card will easily slip beteen the zoom ring and the barrel of the 17/55 lens.

2. The business card WILL NOT slip between the zoom ring and the barrel of the 24/105 (which is sealed). It hits something soft and rubbery - an O-ring by any chance? Assuming that later numbers are newer.

It actually is quite reasonable when I stopped to think about it - the zooming action creates a pump - it sucks air in when extending; it expels air when contracting.

It has been said elsewhere on this forum that to complete the weather sealing, a filter is required; but this won't seal the gap between the zoom ring and the barrel.

We're just going to have to be careful with this lens.

Incidentally, how does my serial number compare to others in terms of manufacture date?

[august23]

Well I'm still waiting on ErikM's photos to see if the color rendition is just bad shooting on my part (under/overexposure causing bad color) or if every picture I've seen on the web or taken with the lens myself are just shots of things that simply don't have good colors. I mean the 17-55 wouldn't even be a question if I knew it had the same color quality as the L series. Some say it does, others say it doesnt, and pictures say it doesn't. I'm hoping to be proved very wrong, because I find myself begging for a 24-70L IS more and more. :(

[Glenn NK]

August123:

I don't know if you have seen this site, but I read many of the comments before buying my 17/55, and one thing I recall reading quite a few times was that this lens gives very good colour. That has been my experience too. I can only tell the 17/55 and 24/105 pics apart by the EXIF data.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=303&sort=7&cat=27&page=2

[august23]

I'm well aware of good ol' FM. And that's what's puzzling/annoying. Everyone says what amazing color the lens has, and yet I'm yet to see it, even on my own copy! Then again, I'm a terrible photographer right now. I still forget to take the lens cap off! I'm learning little by little. I DO tend to over/under expose, and I assume that could be an effect. If I could just see that the 17-55 has great color, I'd be set and wouldn't even consider an L. Because no matter how you look at it, this is the sharpest, fastest lens in Canon's entire line up at this price range.

[august23]

*cough cough...erikkkk.....:p

[ErikM]

Sorry dude I didn't end up having any time on my computer last night. Had the girl over for some dinner and a movie. I promise I will post some shots just after 5pm EST~!

[august23]

Ok...I forgive you. :D

[Collin85]

It could, but I strongly suspect that dust enters between the zoom ring and the barrel of the lens. Just to confirm the above suspicion, I did the following test.

..

It actually is quite reasonable when I stopped to think about it - the zooming action creates a pump - it sucks air in when extending; it expels air when contracting.

It has been said elsewhere on this forum that to complete the weather sealing, a filter is required; but this won't seal the gap between the zoom ring and the barrel.

Precisely. There's always that obvious ring-gap between the zoom ring and the barrel, and that's the risk factor I'd like to think. I pretty much said something similar to what you said in another thread. I still use a filter though, but like I said in that thread, it's purely for protection (and cleaning purposes). In terms of dust, I'd be happy to leave the filter on or off.

Speaking of dust, I've had mine for (I believe) nearly 2 weeks now. Taken around 800 shots.. absolutely no dust. Hope it stays that way.

[ErikM]

Ok...I forgive you. :D

THANKS :D And I really do think these images will show you just how nice the colour rendition is with my copy of the 17-55. Check back soon!!

[august23]

One thing it doesn't get enough credit for is build quality. Compared with my f/4L IS, I'd say the f/4 IS only feels better built because its sealed and big. The 17-55 is not poorly built, but to say it's not L built can throw people off. This piece of glass, besides the non-sealed body, is built very well, even for plastic.

[ErikM]

Yea I agree. I find the zoom and focus ring very smooth and there is a nice weight to it too. It doesn't feel poorly built at all :D

[Glenn NK]

August123 and ErikM:

I definitely agree with your comments about quality of this lens - I noted on another thread/forum that the biggest difference in feel between the 17/55 and the 24/105 is that the focus and zoom rings are reversed.

So, when I'm changing back and forth between lenses, I often turn the wrong ring, and to date, this is my biggest beef about the 17/55; I wish it was "laid out" like the 24/105 with focus ring at front and zoom ring at rear.

[constrict]

There is definitely dust inside the front element on mine, 5 months and 10,000+ shots later, even one tiny spec of fiber from something and I've yet to see any of it show up in any of the photos.

I bought this lens used from someone on ebay who got it new in August or September of 06. I just ended up getting a UV filter for it, but I don't see that helping with dust with the barrel gap being there.

It makes me kind of sad to see all the dust in there but as long as it doesn't effect my photos I'll keep going out there and using it rather than thinking and posting online about it :)

[ErikM]

I have had my 17-55 for over a month now and I have zero dust inside :D Used it on the beach in Florida & on the golf course in Florida, no dust!

[mrkgoo]

For the record, here is what Canon had to say:

Hi MrKgoo,
I have talked with the tech and with Australia.
There doesn't seem to be any issue with this lens, I.E. dust gets
In at that same rate as other lenses of similar build. ( zoom lens)
Some L serries ( expensive ) have a different method of zooming
So their outside barrels are arranged differently and these are
less prone to Allowing dust in.

Quick zooming will move a lot of air around and will drag more dust in.
We could check your lens just to make sure that the dust seals are as
they should be ( I'm confident that they are, but you never know ).
There won't be any mods relating to dust seals, if the lens was sealed
Air tight or close to it, then it would be difficult to zoom at all, and
condensation would form very readily.

Canon

[Collin85]

I've had mine for about a month now. No dust at all. :)

[Big Hands]

I've had my 17-55 since last summer and it has gathered quite a lot of dust on the element behind the front element. It's beginning to look like Time Square on New Year's ten minutes after the ball drops. It doesn't affect IQ when I shoot normally, however this past weekend I did some panning action shots.

I checked my sensor three times just to be sure and it is as clean as can be. It looks like an ice rink right after a Zamboni went over it.

Here is an example of what I got when panning:

http://photos.imageevent.com/johansen01/letsgoracin/islandviewclassiccrit4707/Isla%20Vista%2040707%20010a-dust%20bomb.jpg


And then it turns around and takes this:

http://photos.imageevent.com/johansen01/letsgoracin/islandviewclassiccrit4707/Isla%20Vista%2040707%20006a.jpg

All of my panned shots had dust spots and none of my 'regular' shots did. I have had dust on the sensor a couple times and I could see it in regular shots both times. Same with dust on front and rear elements that I could get to. This is different.

I will try a couple of different lenses that I have that are clean and try panning with them to see if they do the same thing. Maybe it is the sensor and I just cant see it, but it really does look shiny and clean.

I'll post a follow up here when I know more.

Regards,
Jeff

[ErikM]

Jeff,

What aperture are you using for panning? What aperture for static shots?

Generally speaking, sensor dust starts to show up in the images at small apertures (f14 or smaller) I am guessing you were panning at a small aperture and using a larger one for the static shot you've posted above.

I have had my 17-55 for about 2 months now and I have used it ALOT. I have ZERO dust inside the lens to this day...

I am really starting to think that only the first few batches of the 17-55 had this problem as all of the people I've spoken to who have recently bought it have no problems.

Try blowing your sensor with a rocket blower or even giving it a wet clean. Your next option would be to send the lens to canon and have them clean it.

[Big Hands]

Jeff,

What aperture are you using for panning? What aperture for static shots?

Generally speaking, sensor dust starts to show up in the images at small apertures (f14 or smaller) I am guessing you were panning at a small aperture and using a larger one for the static shot you've posted above.

I have had my 17-55 for about 2 months now and I have used it ALOT. I have ZERO dust inside the lens to this day...

I am really starting to think that only the first few batches of the 17-55 had this problem as all of the people I've spoken to who have recently bought it have no problems.

Try blowing your sensor with a rocket blower or even giving it a wet clean. Your next option would be to send the lens to canon and have them clean it.

Well Erik, I was using very small apertures for panning f/16 to f/22 and the second shot was f/10.

When I had had sensor dust in the past, I could see it on the sensor.... easily. Right now it looks as clean and shiny as it ever could be.

That said, the good news is that my next door neighbor has some hyper-mega-nuclear sensor cleaner and I will let him have a go at it just to be sure and will post results.

Regards,
Jeff

[ErikM]

Jeff I am not 100% sure of this but from what I have read it is almost impossible for dust specs (in the lens) to show up in images. I do however know that ANY sensor dust will be visible with small apertures as you mentioned using.

Wether or not you are seeing lens dust or sensor dust I do not know :( Please update us when you know more!

[syntrix]

This was at f/18, and I do have some dust specs in my copy. I cleaned the sensor a few days ago and blew out the body before taking this.

http://www.lasvegastech.com/forsale/10f.jpg

yes, there's some dust on the siggy!

[ErikM]

This was at f/18, and I do have some dust specs in my copy. I cleaned the sensor a few days ago and blew out the body before taking this.
yes, there's some dust on the siggy!


I don't see any specs in the image...?

[syntrix]

Focal Length: 55.0mm
CCD Width: 3.85mm
Exposure Time: 0.0080 s (1/125)
Aperture: f/18.0
ISO equiv: 100
White Balance: Auto
Exposure: Manual
Exposure Mode: Manual

edit:

I'm going to pull up the full sized version and really go over it. The panning posts and small aperature have my curiosity going.

double edit:
Dunno if you can see my dust, but here's my 17-55 shot with a siggy 30:
http://www.lasvegastech.com/forsale/1755t.jpg

[syntrix]

I don't see any specs in the image...?

I think you meant spots... I originally interepreted that as "specs" like aperature and shutter speed.

Agreed, I don't see any, but I'll go over the full size raw images tonight.

[bacchanal]

To look for sensor dust:

Open a blank word document on the computer, maximize it and take a picture of your monitor at minimum aperture (f/22 or so). Run auto levels on the image in photoshop. Alternately, you could take a picture of the clear sky. You'll know right away if you have dust on your sensor.

[Glenn NK]

I'm a bit confused; are we talking about dust in the Canon 17/55 EFS lens, or dust on the sensor? (that would be a different thread I think).

And I see a picture of a 10/20 Sigma lens?:confused:

[syntrix]

I'm a bit confused; are we talking about dust in the Canon 17/55 EFS lens, or dust on the sensor? (that would be a different thread I think).

And I see a picture of a 10/20 Sigma lens?:confused:


We are talking about the potential effects of dust within the 17-55mm.

The pic above of the sigma 10-20mm is TAKEN with the 17-55mm. The 17-55mm is mine and has some dust in it. As seen in the picture, of the 10-20, there are no spots at high f values.

The other question for the panning biker is that maybe it's sensor dust showing up, and that person is going to clean the sensor to see if that's the problem.

[SpiltPickle]

I've got a few spots of dust in my 17-55 now, but I haven't not been able to find any real degradation in the images because of it, only because of sensor dust. :)

[bungee]

I just got a 17-55 f2.8 IS and 30D. I've only taken maybe 3 dozen pictures and to my surprise the lens already has a lot of dust inside! There is more dust inside than on the outer element. I have not even used it outside yet. So, what's up with that? Don't think there is anymore I can do to prevent it. The camera is in my bag when not in use.

Thanks,
Brent

A few examples here have been with new cameras including the original post. I had dust on my 400D sensor soon after purchase. I blamed the 17-55 at first but once the body and sensor were cleaned there was no more dust. Not ever !

Just a thought.